• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is the Republican Party in danger of dying out?

Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

That's right, and as a result of that, there is no way to objectively state that a person has a right or not. Without government, that would merely be an subjective exercise.

What did I just say? ITS ASSUMED TO EXIST. There is nothing subjective here. They exist, and the are not granted or "allowed" by govt. Thats it.
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

What did I just say? ITS ASSUMED TO EXIST. There is nothing subjective here. They exist, and the are not granted or "allowed" by govt. Thats it.

The point is this, I can say I have the right to own slaves, you can say I don't. There is no way for us to objectively determine whether I have that right or not. What we can say is that the government says I don't have the right to own slaves and agree to live as if that is the case.

Again, some people feel the states did indeed have the right to secede and it was wrong to prohibit them from doing so. Some feel they had no such right. There is no way to objectively determine whether they have the right, it is a subjective value judgement. However, what we can do is say that the government said they don't have the right, and behave as if that is the case.

That's the point.
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

Can you name those progressives who have changed ? You can't. The radical internationalist left from the fringe needed a label to hide behind and after they dirtied the liberal label they moved over to the progressive movement and hijacked the progressive movement. The progressive movement wasn't a Democrat or Republican movement. During the Progressive era there were as many progressives in the Democrat party as there were in the Republican party. A true progressive is a nationalist socialist. Those progressives of today are something else, mostly Marxist, radical leftist, internationalist socialist, etc. Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Dillingham, Bellamy were all progressives, some were Democrats some were Republicans but all were racist. You can't call yourself a progressive unless you believe that northern Europeans are superior to other ethnicities and races. It's a possibility that the progressives of today are still closet racist since they believe that certain minorities are inferior and can't compete in society and need special privileges and protections to compete in society.

You sure fling poo and hope everyone is too busy ducking to read it. What whacky radical Progressives do you refer to? You are good at throwing trite phrases and labels about.

Not sure what you think a nationalist socialist is, but the Teddy Progressives were far from that. If you read their party platform from 1912 is a curious mix of marxist, socialist, strong nationalism, and woman's rights. Can call 'em lots of things but not Nazis.

Actually you miss the point of this thing called PROGRESS. Once it was a matter of fact not to be questioned that there was a thing called the White Man's Burden. Now not so much. You attempt to both freeze and parse the category as you see fit.

It is funny how a CON thinks he knows what 'the other guy' stands for, more like what he wants to fashion to be his strawman to argue against.
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

The point is this, I can say I have the right to own slaves, you can say I don't. There is no way for us to objectively determine whether I have that right or not. What we can say is that the government says I don't have the right to own slaves and agree to live as if that is the case.

Again, some people feel the states did indeed have the right to secede and it was wrong to prohibit them from doing so. Some feel they had no such right. There is no way to objectively determine whether they have the right, it is a subjective value judgement. However, what we can do is say that the government said they don't have the right, and behave as if that is the case.

That's the point.

Correct me if I'm wrong, government never granted you free speech, it does however protect your right to it.
 
Perhaps. Again, I will reiterate three things I think the Republican party needs to do to make itself more attractive:

1. Stop placing an over emphasis on the interests of finance and employers and start looking out more for the interests of working people. This notion that the interests of finance and employers automatically take care of the interests of working people is flawed. You need to look at for all of them.

2. Stop pandering to racists.

3. Stop placing an over emphasis on projecting US power.

Point #1 is pretty solid.

Point #2 is from lala-land. It's the Democratic Party which is always pushing race-based policies, so how on Earth can opposition to race-based policies be indicative of racism?

Point #3 is also pretty good, but if you look at the various factions in the American polity, the isolationists are found in the Republican Party. It's the Democrats who are the most eager to engage in the internationalist view, to project power, to use American might for society-building experiments, to grant foreign aid, etc. I'm not saying that this doesn't go on in the Republican Party, I'm agreeing that it should be curtailed because simply pointing to the Democrats and excusing Republican behavior by saying "They do it too" is feeble.
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

Does your argument hinge the word unalienable as opposed to the word inalienable and do you ascribe a different meaning to one over the other? Or do you accept the undeniable historical evidence from jefferson himself that the two terms can be used interchangeably without changing the meaning?

And so i understand this idea you have put forth that rights cannot be taken away - is it your contention that the right to keep and bear arms is one of those inalienable rights that cannot be taken away?

ask your question of me in the constitution section of this forum.
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

So under Stalin, or Mao or IN the time of the Roman Empire there was anarchy?

in those forms, those in power were secure.

when no rights are secure....that is anarchy.

there are only 5 forms

monarchy/ dictatorship
oligarchy
democracy
republic
anarchy.
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

That's right, and as a result of that, there is no way to objectively state that a person has a right or not. Without government, that would merely be an subjective exercise.

I agree; with no govt, we just do whatever the hell we want. It's not a question of rights or no rights; it's just we do whatever we want. Nature doesn't give us any rights; there is no god to give us rights; we would just be out there living brutal and short lives.

Without govt, do I have free speech? sure, I can say whatever I want. I can kill anyone I want. I can run around naked in front of other people. I can eat a baby. These aren't "rights". These are behaviors that aren't being regulated.

There are no "natural rights".
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

Correct me if I'm wrong, government never granted you free speech, it does however protect your right to it.

And my response to you is that, as far as I'm concerned there is no such thing as free speech. Therefore there is no right to protect, as far as I'm concerned. You may not agree, but that's your opinion and is a subjective value judgement. What we can do agree to abide by the laws of a government that says there is such a thing. That's about it.
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

I agree; with no govt, we just do whatever the hell we want. It's not a question of rights or no rights; it's just we do whatever we want. Nature doesn't give us any rights; there is no god to give us rights; we would just be out there living brutal and short lives.

Without govt, do I have free speech? sure, I can say whatever I want. I can kill anyone I want. I can run around naked in front of other people. I can eat a baby. These aren't "rights". These are behaviors that aren't being regulated.

There are no "natural rights".

Well I believe in God so I can't truthfully say that I agree with everything that you have said. However I will agree that there is no such thing as natural rights, at least not as conceived by western philosophers.
 
Point #1 is pretty solid.

Point #2 is from lala-land. It's the Democratic Party which is always pushing race-based policies, so how on Earth can opposition to race-based policies be indicative of racism?

Point #3 is also pretty good, but if you look at the various factions in the American polity, the isolationists are found in the Republican Party. It's the Democrats who are the most eager to engage in the internationalist view, to project power, to use American might for society-building experiments, to grant foreign aid, etc. I'm not saying that this doesn't go on in the Republican Party, I'm agreeing that it should be curtailed because simply pointing to the Democrats and excusing Republican behavior by saying "They do it too" is feeble.

Well with regards to 2, I would suggest you look no further than the infamous "Southern Strategy."

Southern strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to a Republican Party strategy of gaining political support for certain candidates in the Southern United States by appealing to racism against African Americans.

With regards to 3, yeah I agree that Democrats do it. They have their flimsy right to protect, or whatever it's called. But I'm not so sure they are more eager to project US power than Republicans. While there are some Republicans who are not like that, it appears to me that most of them act as if they have never seen a war they don't want to engage in. But that's just my perception of it. I can't provide objective evidence that they are more eager than Democrats in that regard. At least not off the bat.
 
Last edited:
Well with regards to 2, I would suggest you look no further than the infamous "Southern Strategy."

I'm not seeing your point. Explain it to me. What does the Southern Strategy from 50 years ago have to do with your claim that the Republican Party of 2014 is appealing to racist whites. What precisely are the Republicans of 2014 doing to appeal to racist whites in 2014?
 
I'm not seeing your point. Explain it to me. What does the Southern Strategy from 50 years ago have to do with your claim that the Republican Party of 2014 is appealing to racist whites. What precisely are the Republicans of 2014 doing to appeal to racist whites in 2014?

Ok fair enough. Let's look at that. I can't really talk so much about 2014, because I haven't been paying very close attention to what Republicans have been saying. But I can give a fairly recent example of the type of thing I'm talking about. I was listening to Rush Limbaugh on the radio, back during the 2008 presidential campaign. I heard him specifically refer to Barack Obama as a "Chicago thug." I'm not exaggerating. That's exactly the words he used. Now Rush is probably not that bad of a guy. But that was way out of line. Thug is a term that is used when referring to a particular type of black male. It's nothing but race baiting, plain and simple.

That's the type of thing they need to stop doing.
 
Ok fair enough. Let's look at that. I can't really talk so much about 2014, because I haven't been paying very close attention to what Republicans have been saying. But I can give a fairly recent example of the type of thing I'm talking about. I was listening to Rush Limbaugh on the radio, back during the 2008 presidential campaign. I heard him specifically refer to Barack Obama as a "Chicago thug." I'm not exaggerating. That's exactly the words he used. Now Rush is probably not that bad of a guy. But that was way out of line. Thug is a term that is used when referring to a particular type of black male. It's nothing but race baiting, plain and simple.

That's the type of thing they need to stop doing.

then why do the Chinese always call crooks...."thugs"
 
then why do the Chinese always call crooks...."thugs"

You are a smart guy and I respect your intelligence. But I fail to understand why you are trying to provide cover for such outrageous behavior. It is simply unacceptable.

But just in case you don't understand what I'm saying, here's a reference for you:

Caldwell: Is "thug" the new word of choice for bigots? - The Denver Post

Caldwell: Is "thug" the new word of choice for bigots?

When Seattle Seahawks cornerback Richard Sherman last week said he didn't appreciate being called a "thug" — calling it the equivalent of the N-word — he opened yet another national dialogue on race.

Is the word "thug" a synonym for that ugly racial label? Can it be? And in what context?

The short answer is: You bet. The longer answer has everything to do with the situation and who's doing the talking.

"Some words can be used as a stand-in or a proxy for the N-word, and 'thug' is one of them," Keith Mayes, a University of Minnesota professor of African-American studies told me.

A "thug" is often a young, black, poor, inner-city male and the label comes with at least a whiff of criminality, Mayes said.

The point is this, Republicans need to stop race baiting in this way, that's if they want to make their party more attractive.
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

And my response to you is that, as far as I'm concerned there is no such thing as free speech. Therefore there is no right to protect, as far as I'm concerned. You may not agree, but that's your opinion and is a subjective value judgement. What we can do agree to abide by the laws of a government that says there is such a thing. That's about it.

Again to my knowledge their was never a law granting free speech. However there are provisions that provides protection of free speech. There is nothing subjective about it. We have a military that also provides protection of our citizens.
 
I'm not seeing your point. Explain it to me. What does the Southern Strategy from 50 years ago have to do with your claim that the Republican Party of 2014 is appealing to racist whites. What precisely are the Republicans of 2014 doing to appeal to racist whites in 2014?

anti immigration laws? The language (as pointed out by MildSteel) that Rush and his ilk use? the refusal to accept Pres Obama's birth certificate? so called "voter id" laws that result in disenfranchising people of color? I mean seriously, if they aren't appealing to racist whites, why are they doing all that?
 
I heard him specifically refer to Barack Obama as a "Chicago thug." I'm not exaggerating. That's exactly the words he used. Now Rush is probably not that bad of a guy. But that was way out of line. Thug is a term that is used when referring to a particular type of black male. It's nothing but race baiting, plain and simple.

Thug is not a racial term. I agree that Obama was a Chicago thug. This assessment is based on Obama's record in politics, not on his race. Obama was a dirty player in Chicago politics. It was his conduct which earned him the label.

Can you come up with a better example? Secondly, Rush Limbaugh is not an agent of the Republican Party, so I'm not quite seeing how Republican Party policies or practices are tied to the words of a radio host.
 
You are a smart guy and I respect your intelligence. But I fail to understand why you are trying to provide cover for such outrageous behavior. It is simply unacceptable.

But just in case you don't understand what I'm saying, here's a reference for you:

Caldwell: Is "thug" the new word of choice for bigots? - The Denver Post



The point is this, Republicans need to stop race baiting in this way, that's if they want to make their party more attractive.

I never knew about this "thug" thing being a underground word for a black whatever. Hell I call unions, thugs all the time. Mobsters were all called "thugs". Druggies are "Drug Lords" but to me they are all "Thugs".

Some professor tells me not to use the word "Thug" get the hell out of here. When I see a "thug" I'll call him a thug, I don't give a damn what color he his.
 
anti immigration laws? The language (as pointed out by MildSteel) that Rush and his ilk use? the refusal to accept Pres Obama's birth certificate? so called "voter id" laws that result in disenfranchising people of color? I mean seriously, if they aren't appealing to racist whites, why are they doing all that?

Got it, your for an open border.
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

Again to my knowledge their was never a law granting free speech. However there are provisions that provides protection of free speech. There is nothing subjective about it. We have a military that also provides protection of our citizens.

It's subjective because you can't prove that rights actually exist. You have to assume it to be so. And as a result of that you cannot say that free speech actually exists. You can also assume rights don't exist. The assumption is a subjective value judgement.
 
Thug is not a racial term. I agree that Obama was a Chicago thug. This assessment is based on Obama's record in politics, not on his race. Obama was a dirty player in Chicago politics. It was his conduct which earned him the label.

Can you come up with a better example? Secondly, Rush Limbaugh is not an agent of the Republican Party, so I'm not quite seeing how Republican Party policies or practices are tied to the words of a radio host.

You can assert it's not a racial term, and that's your prerogative. However there are many people who do not agree with you, and I provided a reference to demonstrate that. The thing is this, Republicans can go on engaging in such behavior and try to brush it off like it's nothing. But they will have to live with the results.
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

It's subjective because you can't prove that rights actually exist. You have to assume it to be so. And as a result of that you cannot say that free speech actually exists. You can also assume rights don't exist. The assumption is a subjective value judgement.

Got it, you deny there are provisos protecting your right to speak freely. :doh
 
Back
Top Bottom